I think that's totally fair and helpful, basically an embargo on new use. Plus even an offer to help others create their own similar stimuli. I know from experience though that not everyone agrees with this approach.
I'm fairly certain at UCL that all stuff a student creates as part of their PhD belongs to UCL (and perhaps like you say can be, or is, given back). I think there is no difference between employee and student intellectual property rights for, e.g., stimuli.
-
-
That means that it's hard to argue given intellectual property law (not y/our ethical judgment) that the stimuli should be kept private based on just the student's wishes given "their" creations actually first belong to UCL.
-
This makes me sceptical of the decision to keep them private or keep them copyrighted under a limiting license especially if created using public funds at a publicly funded institution.
-
That being said, I'm not sure this can be a hard and fast rule. There must be exceptional cases where the stimuli must be kept private, I just can't think of any.
-
If you use someone else’s stimuli, and they don’t give you permission to share
-
I have some stimuli that can't be shared publicly (because they form a memory test, small set, very difficult to produce/evaluate), so anyone who uses them has to agree not to share with anyone else. Not uncommon issues, I suspect.
-
BTW our university lawyer told me - I think - that IP created by students remains their property by default.
-
That's good!
-
Right, very sensible. Just curious... so a custom (?) license that requires it to be kept within the community of scientists who have already agreed to the licence. Something like that?
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.